Did you know the Nazis were liberals???

Nazism largely succeeded due to mob mentality. We are seeing some of the same pressures pervasive amongst liberal dogmas and social engineering being applied in the West, where if you disagree you’re pilloried and abused. There is even a whole glossary of semantic bully words to describe conservative dissidents (homophobes, sexist, bigots, archaic, unprogressive, intolerant, opposed to equality).

John is effectively comparing the Nazis to those who dare to argue against him. Not a winning strategy. Any comparison to the Nazis is offensive and ill-considered unless someone is actually out there committing genocide and the like. Calling someone a name is not comparable. Not even in the same universe actually.

Let’s remember, Hitler’s politics was Socialist before it was fascist.

Yes, but socialism and liberalism are very different things.

The Christian church was prominent among the few who stood up against this 1930s “progressive” ‘new morality’ hope and change wave, and then shielded the Jews at peril of their own lives. History repeats.

Is John saying he is risking his life by arguing against same sex marriage? Does he see himself as a brave martyr risking the mob burning down his home?

Also on a historical note, while there were many brave Christians who risked their lives to save Jews, the record of the Christian churches as a whole was very mixed.

It is utterly historically inaccurate to understand Nazism as a conservative movement, which it patently was not. It was radical, violent, self-righteous, liberal, progressive, new; it threw away, mocked and persecuted the old order

Oh yes, the Nazis were liberals and progressives. For someone who is meant to be complaining about the use of language to demonise, John does the exact thing he complains about.

Newflash to John. The Nazis executed Germans for being homosexuals – they didn’t allow them to marry. They banned gay organisations, they burned impure books, they arrested 100,000 homosexuals for being homosexuals and thousands perished in concentration camps. This is not liberalism.

In 1936 Himmler created the “Reich Central Office for the Combating of Homosexuality and Abortion”. Does that sound like something a liberal regime would do, or a “conservative” one? The correct answer is actually neither as labels are inadequate for the Nazis, but oif John is going to play that game, well I’d say 99% of people would say such an office sound more conservative than liberal.

John says the Nazis were liberals and the wonders why he gets verbally abused by some. You get verbal abuse when you say outrageous offensive things such as the Nazi were liberals. Don’t say stupid offensive things, and you won’t get so much flak.

White Roses or red blood. Read more about that historic movement and lessons we can learn for today, here White Rose.

John praised White Rose for fighting Hitler. I agree they are heroes. Quite inspirational.

One of the founders of White Rose was Hans Scholl. He was executed at the age of 24 along with his sister. Many Germans revere them and their bravery and convictions.

Scholl incidentally was earlier arrested by the Nazis and accused of various offences including a same-sex teen relationship when he was 16. The Daily Mail reports:

During their interrogation neither of them cracked, but Sophie explained that Hans’s long drawn-out ordeal at the hands of the Gestapo years earlier over what they termed his ‘sexual deviance’ was ‘the most important reason’ for her subsequent decision to defy Hitler’s regime.

So I’m not so sure Hans or Sophie Scholl would really appreciate John’s portrayal of liberals (such as supporters of same sex marriage) as akin to Nazis.

Related Stories

Comments (150)

Cato

RRM – the government didn’t impose traditional marriage norms on the people. Those norms predated the government and predated all formal laws everywhere. The government didn’t ‘create’ marriage – it recognised it (and then made some attempts to regulate it by restricitng it).

Some of us see it as a government imposition for it to annex it completely by declaring total sovereignty over it. You may not agree it’s a sound argument, but it’s certainly a valid one, at least.

For God’s sake, you people who link a wish for small government with support for the redefinition of marriage are just such brainwashed losers.

Lets just say you really cared about tyranny and you had the chance to change things-

Were would you start? By sacking 100 politicians and cutting government size by 80% and cutting expenditure to 20% of what it is now, or allowing two Marxist losers to use a shonky and corrupt big government process to redefine traditional marriage?

Don’t answer. I’m really not that interested in bandying ideas about with such mental cripples.

Cato

SPC – I never said there aren’t alternatives to a troika of socialism, fascism or capitalism. Where would you get that idea? Accurately describing two things is not the same thing as saying there is only one alternative. For all you know, I might believe in distributism – if I did then that wouldn’t negate a single thing I’ve written.

RRM

However, the govt does have a role in administering state records of marriages, and a state-recorded marriage has some spin-offs for citizens that have one.

What is happening now is that the Govt is being asked to liberalise the scope of marriages that can be legally recognised in NZ, and it is conservative forces that are at the forefront of people saying “No, state-recorded marriage should continue to exclude the gays.”

Cato

RRM – that is certainly one way of looking at it. Another is to say that it is a vast expansion of government power because the state is asserting a right to redefine a basic, immemorial institution. If another government were to say, “We see where you are coming from, but we don’t think we have absolute authority over civil society and so we’re not sure we have the power to do that” – would you characterise that as the over-reaching of government power?

Which is the better argument? It’s debateable. I personally support traditional marriage but am at least somewhat agnostic about the importance or impact of the reform is a civil law matter.

SPC

Cato, how is natural law distinguished from morality? And if there is no separation, where is the place for God?

If God, natural law and morality are one, is there not really a claim that God pre-existed human government and that God’s law should apply – or is this line also not all inference …. Just as, opposition to regulation of private business and socialism only infers but does not mean pro capitalism…

In the above I am referring to the quote early on the thread not your own position necessarily …

And as for marriage pre-existing government, de facto relationships preceded marriage. Marriage is the artificial construct made by society/the group on/for such monogomous partnerships.

As for government law (as we know it) constraining marriage – the opposite, government liberalised terms for marriage – allowed it to take place between those of different faith groups and include divorced people etc. Formalised what would have otherwise what would have been de facto partnerships – in this doing just what happened in the very beginning – formalising de facto partnerships.

SPC

Cato, is not the idea of limiting government and seeing civil society as having a greater role, really just code for the church having the role of setting society moral standards and providing for the peoples needs. Thus a smaller role for government – via subsidiarity?

Dennis Horne

Some men prefer sex with women, some with themselves, some with other men, some with young children, some with goats.

If the sex does not concern children, either as the possible outcome or the target, I don’t see why the relationship need concern the state, although there may be property considerations for those cohabiting.

Note: de facto means “in fact” if not in law. What is a de facto relationship or partnership? Shorthand?

Cato

Psycho – hardly. Where in the Marriage Act does it say – “There shall be an institution called marriage which will henceforth exist and be open to all pair-bonds that meet with society’s approval”?

Instead, all of the language in the Act presupposes the existence of something called “marriage” and instead places restrictions on how these can be solemnised. It is not the same thing to restrict something than it is to redefine it in a fundamental way.

Jack5

DPF is correct about resorting to accusations of “Nazi” against those you disagree with.

DPF is also right about the mixed role of the Christian churches in Nazi Germany.

However, there were homosexual Nazis, notably Ernst Rohm, an open, even defiantly open gay. Rohm in the early days of the Nazis was virtually Hitler’s right hand man as head of the violent SA (the “Brown Shirts”), the precursor to the SS.

I doubt the Nazi Party was as stacked with gays as Fletch alleges in his 11.07 post, but according to the historian William Shirer, many of the early Nazis were homosexuals.

According to the New York Times of 10 July 1991, many sources mention Rudolf Hess “as an habitue of the gay subculture of Berlin in the Weimar era.” After his flight to Britain, the Nazis apparently also depicted him as gay, probably to ridicule his solo journey. However, Hess’s son, Wolf Rudiger Hess, alleged the homosexuality claim was a smear originating from the KGB.

Resorting to alleged “Nazi” precedents is diversionary and seldom useful.The tactic is rampant in the blogosphere. Nearly all of us slip into it from time to time using alleged Nazi or fascist links to label our opponents in everything from fluoridation to MMP.

Mike Godwin’s Law of Nazi Analogies has not weakened since he promulgated it in 1990: As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1.”

In the case of this thread, it started with Nazis, so we create for Godwin a corollary: if an online discussion begins with Hitler or the Nazis it expands towards infinity.

Cato

SPC said:

“Cato, is not the idea of limiting government and seeing civil society as having a greater role, really just code for the church having the role of setting society moral standards and providing for the peoples needs. Thus a smaller role for government – via subsidiarity?”

I would reject that contention on this basis: civil society, including traditional marriage norms, aren’t actually set by the Church. The Church neither creates morality nor civil society. Traditional marriage norms, for example, have been universal. They existed in places where there was no “Church” like Rome and the Greek city states (despite varying degrees of toleration – and even celebration – of homosexual bonds). In fact they emerge organically through millenia of spontaneous interactions – and are ratified by the state for that reason. Over time, we can try to determine why these norms emerge and thus, what the natural law is.

Who is to say that the marriage norms haven’t simply evolved organically since 2003? That could well be the case. Against that, I would argue that this is a very short amount of time against thousands of years of uncontested precedent. It is an interesting discussion to have. Time will tell.

adam2314

The above post by DPF about the Singh Frauds should have you more worried.. Not whether Hitler was a Bloody socialist or not..

Those people involved in the ALLEGED !!.. Fraud should be met head on straight away.. No pissing around for a couple of years… .. But NO !!.. You would rather see yourselves in print pontificating about DRIBBLE..

Dennis Horne

There seems to be a basic symmetry here: the Nazi-name-callers and the anti-Nazi-name-callers. “Marriage Equality” is propaganda. Bullying is bullying. When a homosexual calls me a “bigot”, I retort “faggot”. One word is a description, the other an insult.

While I cannot speak with authority, I very much doubt that homosexual men have any insight into the sex drive that is the reason we are (nearly) all here. The behaviour is not mere pleasure-seeking, which homosexuals understand, it is more like gasping for breath.

The essence of marriage, in the general case, is copulation and rearing any children. Why do homosexual couples, who cannot breed together, want to call their relationship “marriage”? Come on Farrar, you must know.

SPC

Cato, on the point of the language of the topic, the terms natural law and term marriage norm infer otherwise unnatural law and the abnormal. Somewhat loaded terms in regard to same sex marriage.

As to the Church neither creating morality nor civil society, this is a point that Christians other than yourself might dispute. The Creation myth and the follow up in Romans Chapter 1 are attempts to identify what is natural as of creation by God.

The Hebrew word reshit does not mean creation so much as renewal of the way the world is seen by the faithful of creation. Thus the attempt to identify creation of woman for the marriage of the man – because civil society had found a value for procreation in provide an heir to the property estate/legacy of the man (including a throne), thus this became the role of women.

Paul then attempts to pose faith in a Creator God with a necessary limitation of sexuality for procreating life within marriage (the seed used for a sacred life creating purpose line) and lack of faith in a Creator God amongst creation being associated with both idolatry and also a curse from God of homosexuality. Thus an attempt to identify the marriage bed (sacrament) as created by the Judeo-Christian God.

It could be argued that civil society in ending the criminalisation and or compulsory treatment same sex activity is enabling same sex marriages and thus participating in sanction of this activity as a curse on those who disobey the church by ignoring its prohibition. Sounds like an apple that is a forbidden. If however what is forbidden is sexual activity outside of marriage or non procreative sexual activity on the marriage bed, then all those who do not marry as virgins or those who practice oral sex and all those using the condom and the contraceptive pill have already succumbed to the temptation of this apple.

The Nazis were authoritarians who wished to compel a nation to bend to their view of morality. I tend to call such people socialists regardless of what that view of morality is. I also tend to call them “Nazis”. I don’t think there should be a special taboo on that word.

The irony is that Stringer was calling out people for using labels as arguments. In that sense, to avoid hypocrisy, the label “Nazi” may not be useful. However, they were authoritarians, which makes them and the Left kindred spirits, so leftists should stop complaining that their authoritarian forcing of people to bend to their will is somehow more noble than the other kind.

I want to live in a free society, so Leftists are Nazis, Nazis are Nazis, and people who want the government to call marriage something that it is not are Nazis. There is really no difference between the lot of them.

Dennis Horne

Ryan Sproull (5,462) Says: March 8th, 2013 at 8:54 am(BlairM) The Nazis were authoritarians who wished to compel a nation to bend to their view of morality. I tend to call such people socialists regardless of what that view of morality is.

Including the people whose Christian view of morality means they don’t want same-sex couples being called marriages?

It’s not lack of intelligence, it’s psychological. The reason homosexuals cannot comprehend their partnerships are not marriages. It’s a question of differences and definitions, like buses and trucks.

If homosexuals don’t want to get married, fine, but why the maniacal need to call their relationships “marriage”?

Is it because they feel inferior, otherwise?

Of course it is. Homosexuals will usurp the word “marriage” as they have the words “gay” and “hero” and for what?

A growing number of couples shrugging off marriage and their children. Maybe they can donate them to the gays. A swathe of the population to be raised with two mummies or two daddies. Yes, yes, the statistics show … blah blah blah.

Dennis Horne

Psycho Milt (1,265) Says: March 8th, 2013 at 8:58 am(BlairM) I tend to call such people socialists regardless of what that view of morality is. I also tend to call them “Nazis”.

You are of course free to make up whatever meanings you like for words – it may well hamper communication with others, though.

It’s metaphorical, like calling someone a “lying bastard”.

A word best avoided, Nazi, because it causes an entirely disproportionate response. Although I have heard perfectly reasonable Germans say what Europe needs is some benign Nazis. They may get their wish. Spent much time in London or Paris lately? Democracy won’t survive.

The Nazis were authoritarians who wished to compel a nation to bend to their view of morality. I tend to call such people socialists regardless of what that view of morality is.

Including the people whose Christian view of morality means they don’t want same-sex couples being called marriages?

Why is their opinion less valuable than that of the people who do? And why should government be the arbiter of it?

Definitions of words exist outside of the dictates of government. It is authoritarian for governments to start assuming they can change the meanings of words by putting them on certificates and giving them to people who don’t fit that description.

I’m sure some opponents of redefining marriage are prejudiced against homosexuals generally, don’t want them to formalise their relationship, don’t want to give them equal human rights, and would prefer the government didn’t allow that sort of thing. And yes, those folk are a pack of Nazis too. But I’m not one of them. I respect and support the freedom of gay couples, I just don’t call what they do marriage, and I don’t want the government making their opinion of what they do more important than mine.

Kea

A word best avoided, Nazi,

It is best translated. National SOCIALIST Workers Party. The people most likely to use the term Nazi, seem much less comfortable with the translation.

They were not just socialist in name. The parties policies were very socialist. They appealed to those who wanted more equality and who felt disenfranchised in German society at the time. Closing the gaps and all that …

I didn’t say they were. I just pointed out that they fit your definition of Nazis.

And why should government be the arbiter of it?

It shouldn’t, which is why the government should stay out of marriage entirely or, if it’s going to be involved in marriage, legally recognise it without any weighting that comes from any particular group of people’s values.

Definitions of words exist outside of the dictates of government. It is authoritarian for governments to start assuming they can change the meanings of words by putting them on certificates and giving them to people who don’t fit that description.

Do definitions of words exist outside the dictates of government or do you think governments can change the meaning of words? Which is it?

I’m sure some opponents of redefining marriage are prejudiced against homosexuals generally, don’t want them to formalise their relationship, don’t want to give them equal human rights, and would prefer the government didn’t allow that sort of thing. And yes, those folk are a pack of Nazis too. But I’m not one of them. I respect and support the freedom of gay couples, I just don’t call what they do marriage, and I don’t want the government making their opinion of what they do more important than mine.

You don’t call what they do marriage, and you want that view of yours to be forced on everyone via the government. The government should be neutral on the matter, without legally favouring your views. No one is forcing you to call same-sex or interracial couples “marriages” if you don’t want to. But the government should be neutral on the matter.

“Definitions of words exist outside of the dictates of government. It is authoritarian for governments to start assuming they can change the meanings of words by putting them on certificates and giving them to people who don’t fit that description.”

Do definitions of words exist outside the dictates of government or do you think governments can change the meaning of words? Which is it?

The former. The crucial word I used in the paragraph above was “assuming”. But just because governments can’t change definitions doesn’t mean they should try.

You don’t call what they do marriage, and you want that view of yours to be forced on everyone via the government.

Er… no I don’t. I think you can make an argument that the government is simply following the already established definition of marriage by issuing marriage certificates. But it wouldn’t bother me in the slightest if they stopped doing that, just so everyone can be kept happy. Personally the whole debate appalls me, because having a word on a certificate that is issued by the government is not a human right by any measurable standard. It’s disgraceful that the debate is being framed and demagogued in that way.

Er… no I don’t. I think you can make an argument that the government is simply following the already established definition of marriage by issuing marriage certificates. But it wouldn’t bother me in the slightest if they stopped doing that, just so everyone can be kept happy. Personally the whole debate appalls me, because having a word on a certificate that is issued by the government is not a human right by any measurable standard. It’s disgraceful that the debate is being framed and demagogued in that way.

Yeah, I think the most elegant solution is to abolish the Marriage Act entirely. The only problem is how other countries often place weight on legal marriage for various practical things.

Dennis Horne

Ryan Sproull (5,463) Says: March 8th, 2013 at 10:41 am
No one is forcing you to call same-sex or interracial couples “marriages” if you don’t want to.

One may or may not agree with interracial marriage, but it is marriage: couples mate and raise children.

Homosexual acts do not constitute mating and do not result in children. The relationship is no more a marriage than a sexual relationship with a goat, to which I have no objection either, by the way. Nor is it any less biologically absurd than paedophilia, which is abhorrent and unacceptable to all decent people because children cannot give consent.

Homosexuality is acceptable in Western society now on the basis it concerns consenting adults. Calling a homosexual relationship “marriage” will make it not one whit more acceptable to people who think, rightly or wrongly, it is abnormal.

One may or may not agree with interracial marriage, but it is marriage: couples mate and raise children.

Homosexual acts do not constitute mating and do not result in children. The relationship is no more a marriage than a sexual relationship with a goat, to which I have no objection either, by the way. Nor is it any less biologically absurd than paedophilia, which is abhorrent and unacceptable to all decent people because children cannot give consent.

Goats can’t give consent either.

If your definition of marriage was accurate, infertile couples could not marry. Everyone agrees they can, so clearly your definition is not accurate.

Homosexuality is acceptable in Western society now on the basis it concerns consenting adults. Calling a homosexual relationship “marriage” will make it not one whit more acceptable to people who think, rightly or wrongly, it is abnormal.

Dennis Horne

@Ryan Sproull. Of course definitions are not accurate, that’s why I speak of the “essence” and so forth. A car has four wheels but some have three. A chair is still a chair if a leg breaks off. In the general case, marriage concerns mating and children. Indeed, a marriage not consummated can be annulled. Nitpicking.

We don’t ask goats’ consent to kill them, so again nitpicking. Indeed, consent need not be verbal, as any man who has seduced a woman will tell you.

On the one hand you want me to believe you think marriage is important, on the other you say abolish the Marriage Act. Actually, I think what you believe important is you.

I am sick of the homosexuals whining, “We want equality, we want marriage.” No you don’t. You want to have your own way, that’s all.

@Ryan Sproull. Of course definitions are not accurate, that’s why I speak of the “essence” and so forth. A car has four wheels but some have three. A chair is still a chair if a leg breaks off. In the general case, marriage concerns mating and children. Indeed, a marriage not consummated can be annulled. Nitpicking.

No, I think it’s important, rather than nitpicking. What makes a marriage is love, not procreation.

We don’t ask goats’ consent to kill them, so again nitpicking.

I agree, but then, I’m a vegetarian.

On the one hand you want me to believe you think marriage is important, on the other you say abolish the Marriage Act. Actually, I think what you believe important is you.

Abolishing the Marriage Act doesn’t abolish marriage. Marriage was around long before the Marriage Act.

I am sick of the homosexuals whining, “We want equality, we want marriage.” No you don’t. You want to have your own way, that’s all.

I want them to have equality. If having equality is having their own way, fine. And aren’t opponents of legally recognised same-sex marriage are also wanting to have their own way?

Dennis Horne

@Ryan Sproull. “What make a marriage is love, not procreation.” As I said earlier, homosexuals have no idea what marriage is. Not surprising really, considering the handicap. Not many colour-blind interior decorators, blind watchmakers…

“I want them to have equality.” Equality is civil union/partnership. Marriage is something else; men and women.

“Marriage was around long before the Marriage Act.” True, but abolishing the Act would abolish marriage in the legal sense.

You want to drastically change an institution that has, since time immemorial, concerned mating and rearing any children, the formalisation of a special relationship that has its roots in the beginning of life itself. I don’t call that wanting my own way. I call it recognising reality and the way of life.

Homosexual marriage is narcissistic humbug. Homosexuals don’t want to be married, they want to be normal.

@Ryan Sproull. “What make a marriage is love, not procreation.” As I said earlier, homosexuals have no idea what marriage is. Not surprising really, considering the handicap. Not many colour-blind interior decorators, blind watchmakers…

If you don’t think marriage is about love, Dennis, I don’t think you know what marriage is about.

“Marriage was around long before the Marriage Act.” True, but abolishing the Act would abolish marriage in the legal sense.

Who cares? What business is it of the state? If people want to draw up legal contracts between each other, they can.

You want to drastically change an institution that has, since time immemorial, concerned mating and rearing any children, the formalisation of a special relationship that has its roots in the beginning of life itself. I don’t call that wanting my own way. I call it recognising reality and the way of life.

I don’t want to change the institution of marriage. I want the state to get out of it, or failing that, for the state to stop imposing your views on everyone else.

Homosexual marriage is narcissistic humbug. Homosexuals don’t want to be married, they want to be normal.

It really doesn’t matter what homosexuals want, or what you think they want. The state has no business playing favourites with how people live their lives.

Dennis Horne

Ryan Sproull: “The state has no business playing favourites with how people live their lives.”

What a lot of poppycock. The state is not telling homosexuals how to live their lives. Homosexuals can even get married, just not to each other, because marriage concerns men and women, always has. Two males don’t qualify for marriage together, legally or otherwise, never have, ever.

I don’t call not interfering with an institution that has never permitted homosexual acts the state playing favourites, any more than I call the state not allowing people to be doctors or airline pilots without the necessary qualifications playing favourites.

Most people are going along with this redefinition because they no longer care about marriage. Fashional nonsense.

I have been married for more than 40 years. All my friends have been married for >40 years. They all feel, without exception, as I do. All are well educated. All are atheists. We don’t need sexually immature men telling us what marriage is.

Homosexuals can form whatever relationships they like, but they cannot get married. The state can issue the paperwork but it’s worthless. Like the $500 degrees from some universities. A sham.

What a lot of poppycock. The state is not telling homosexuals how to live their lives. Homosexuals can even get married, just not to each other, because marriage concerns men and women, always has. Two males don’t qualify for marriage together, legally or otherwise, never have, ever.

That’s your view. Others have other views. The state must be neutral on the matter.

I don’t call not interfering with an institution that has never permitted homosexual acts the state playing favourites, any more than I call the state not allowing people to be doctors or airline pilots without the necessary qualifications playing favourites.

Again, it’s your view that the doctor/airline pilot analogy holds. That’s fine, but it’s not the state’s place to force your view on everyone.

Most people are going along with this redefinition because they no longer care about marriage. Fashional nonsense.

Even if that were true, it is irrelevant to the point at hand.

I have been married for more than 40 years. All my friends have been married for >40 years. They all feel, without exception, as I do. All are well educated. All are atheists. We don’t need sexually immature men telling us what marriage is.

And no one needs you and your mates using the state to tell them what marriage should be. The state should keep out of it.

Homosexuals can form whatever relationships they like, but they cannot get married. The state can issue the paperwork but it’s worthless. Like the $500 degrees from some universities. A sham.

That’s your view, but the state should not favour your view over others. It should remain neutral on the matter.